Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.80 seconds)
Selvam vs State on 20 December, 2017 cites

Aghnoo Nagesia vs State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1965

(x). Be that as it may, the language of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, is very clear and it says no confession to a police officer can 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.226 of 2019 be proved 'against' a person accused of any offence. The corollary to such a provision would be that the confession can be used in favour of the accused. However, the Division Bench in Sudalaimani's case [cited supra] held that a confession given to the police officer during investigation would amount to a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C., relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 and therefore, it cannot be put to any use during trial except for the purposes mentioned in Section 162(2) of the Cr.P.C, which reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 351 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960

In Deoman Upadhyaya's case [cited supra] a very interesting question arose. The Allahabad High Court, had struck down Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as unconstitutional, by holding that since Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to a confession given during the custody of a police officer, a confessional FIR (when the accused is not in custody) even if it leads to the discovery of fact, cannot be proved in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority held that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not unconstitutional.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 338 - J C Shah - Full Document

The Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Lalit Mohan Singha Roy on 25 April, 1921

Evidence Act, arising in the matter of admissibility of such statements made to the police officer in the course of an investigation between persons in custody and persons not in custody, has little practical significance. When a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.226 of 2019 Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody: submission to the custody by word or action by a person in sufficient. A person directly giving to a police officer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody " of the police officer within the meaning of s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan 'Singh ((1921) ILR (49) Cal 167), Santokhi Beldar v. King Emperor ((1933) ILR (12) Patna 241). Exceptional cases may certainly be imagined in which a person may give information without presenting himself before a police officer who is investigating an offence. For instance, he may write a letter and give such information or may send a telephonic or other message to the police officer. But in considering whether a statute is unconstitutional on the ground that the law has given equal treatment to all persons similarly circumstanced, it must be remembered that the legislature has to deal with practical problems; the question is not to be judged by merely enumerating other theoretically possible situations to which the statute might have been but is not applied. As has often been said in considering whether there has been a denial of the equal protection of the laws, a doctrinaire approach is to be avoided. A person who has committed an offence, but who is not in custody, normally would not without surrendering himself to the police give information voluntarily to a police officer investigating the commission of that offence leading to the discovery of material evidence supporting a charge against him for the commission of the offence. The Parliament enacts laws to deal with practical problems which are likely to arise in the affairs of men. Theoretical possibility of an offender not in custody because the 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.226 of 2019 police officer investigating the offence has not been able to get at any evidence against him giving information to the police officer without surrendering himself to the police, which may lead to the discovery of an important fact by the police, cannot be ruled out; but such an occurrence would indeed be rare.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

(xv). Ofcourse, where an information is given by any victim / witness, then the information has to be recorded before commencing an investigation. This has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 187. However, an information by a victim/witness, is always not necessary for commencing an investigation, as could be seen from the words employed in Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., which says that a police officer on 'information received or otherwise'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next